1 |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On 13/04/18 23:25, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> One form of transparency I have suggested is that when |
5 |
>> disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be |
6 |
>> given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at |
7 |
>> their option that explanation would be made public verbatim. I've |
8 |
>> seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance |
9 |
>> privacy/transparency/risk. The person being disciplined can at their |
10 |
>> option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in |
11 |
>> an official way. However, if they decide to publish their own account |
12 |
>> of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then |
13 |
>> those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the |
14 |
>> full story. Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without |
15 |
>> permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of |
16 |
>> legal repercussions. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
> I think that if this is the process, people are more likely to buy into |
19 |
> it, and accept that if that's the way it works, they can take it or |
20 |
> leave it - and the risk is more theirs than that of the organisation. I |
21 |
> think that in itself will garner more respect than the current situation |
22 |
> at least .. |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
I hate to drag out this tangent further, but there is another matter |
26 |
that I think that the community should probably vote on: whether |
27 |
Comrel will accept testimony/evidence/complaints that will be withheld |
28 |
from the target of the complaint. |
29 |
|
30 |
Currently the policy is that this kind of evidence will be accepted, |
31 |
which generates frustration because people feel like they cannot |
32 |
confront their accuser. The obvious defense of this policy is that |
33 |
without it some would not come forward with legitimate complaints out |
34 |
of fear of retaliation (by the person they're accusing, or others who |
35 |
care about them), or just concern for having their names come up in |
36 |
Google associated with the incident, since they might trust Gentoo to |
37 |
keep it private but not the person they're having problems with. |
38 |
|
39 |
I'm sure there are plenty of examples of organizations that do it |
40 |
either way, and since we aren't an employer/etc I don't think we |
41 |
really have any legal constraints here. |
42 |
|
43 |
Either way the policy should be clear to anybody bringing forward a |
44 |
complaint so that they can trust us to keep things confidential, or |
45 |
not, in accordance with the policy. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Rich |